26.11.10

PREMIER LEAGUE FINALS: WHO CAN STOP O'SULLIVAN?

I would never bet against Ronnie O’Sullivan in the partycasino.net Premier League.

It’s not just the shot-clock – although that is a factor – but more the nature of the event: turning up for a night, playing and going home that suits Ronnie’s personality more than hanging around for nine days at a time.

He has two nights to play this weekend if he is to win the League for a ninth time. O’Sullivan made a slowish start to this year’s competition but stepped it up towards the end of the round robin phase and, by the end, was playing some superb stuff.

Among his victims was Neil Robertson who he plays again in the semi-finals tomorrow night.

Robertson very nearly missed out on a last four place by virtue of arriving at Llandudno for his final match last week with only minutes to spare.

But he beat Shaun Murphy to get through and the world champion and world no.1 is of course a massive threat to O’Sullivan.

Except, Robertson is less settled in the format than Ronnie. His League performances have been inconsistent and while I would favour him if these two met in a ranking event, O’Sullivan is always fired up for the League and has to start favourite.

People who knock the League seem to think it’s just an extended series of exhibitions without pressure. They should speak to the players, every one of whom regards it as a prestigious event. In fact, they clamour to get in it.

The Premier League has run since 1987 and seen off countless ranking events in the last 23 years.

Live on TV in front of big crowds, it’s a test of temperament, tactics (because of the shot clock) and the ability to think quickly. There’s also big money on offer and this affects a player’s thinking too.

O’Sullivan’s dominance in recent years proves his innate snooker intelligence. It’s not just that he plays quickly: he sees the right shot immediately.

Unlike in a long match his focus is less likely to go, but this doesn’t make the League easier to win. It’s just a different mindset, a different set of skills required.

Last year O’Sullivan chose to run the Norwich half marathon on the morning of the final and lost 7-3 to Murphy.

That’s not to say Shaun wouldn’t have won anyway but it was hardly the best preparation.

Murphy has kept himself ticking over this season by playing in all the PTCs, winning one, finishing runner-up in another and topping the order of merit.

In the other semi-final he faces Marco Fu, who returns to action fresh from winning the gold medal for Hong Kong at the Asian Games last week.

Marco is capable of brilliant performances but at other times, for whatever reason, just can’t get going.

He beat Murphy 4-2 in the League section and is a former champion himself so Murphy has his work cut out to reach the final again.

The Premier League is really the only successful modern tournament on the calender. The field has been a little soft in recent years, but that argument certainly doesn't apply this year; whoever wins it this year has won a top-drawer competitive event. Fu is probably worth a bet — he's well capable of beating Murphy and has done some numbers on Ronnie in the past...

I haven't a clue but they drew in this year's Premier League and of course Fu beat Ronnie in the Grand Prix in 2007. Other notable Fu victories are of course the 1998 Grand Prix semi in Fu's rookie season, the 2003 Premier League where Fu beat Ronnie on the way to the title and the first round of the 2003 world championships. At the 2007 Grand Prix Ronnie was only one or two matches ahead in head-to-heads if I recall correctly. I wouldn't be surprised if he had the best record against him after John Higgins.

Jamie, the bookies price up markets on who will bet, given recent patterns as well as who they think will win

they dont just say, ron is better so he will be fave

youve obviously got no clue about the betting industry and how the market is generated, as youve posted that theory about betting many times.

i think Neil will beat ronnie, but if i think 75% of my customers will back ronnie, then i wont make them both 5/6, i will make one shorter and the other slightly longer. and adjust accordingly depending on volume

This is one of the problems with the internet: it's made people believe their opinions are more important than cold, hard facts. It doesn't matter what you, me or anyone else thinks - Neil Robertson is the world no.1.

Would I take him to beat Ronnie at the Crucible? Yes. But that's an opinion.

I am not disputing the fact, but what I meant he is not yet a dominant number one in the same way that Williams was.

Plus, I never said that my opinion was more important than fact. However, just become someone is number one doesn't mean they are the best player.

Serena Williams is not number one in tennis, but no one in their right mind would say she is not the best player in the world.

Is that because you perceive Ronnie to be in decline? As at his best or John Higgins at his best I would favour them in a long match over Robertson, hopefully we may get to see some evidence of this in Telford.

Of course he's not as dominant as Williams. He's only be there two months!

O'Sullivan seems less interested in digging in at tournaments now, partly because of personal circumstances and wanting to spend more time at home. The release of his father may spur him on more but his game has declined in noticeable ways and though he is still capable of fine performances, whether he has the patience to last the course at Sheffield any more I'm not so sure.

I can live with that, but I thought maybe you were suggesting that Robertson was a better player than Ronnie in general.

I still only think his long potting is in decline, he is still majestic in the balls, but I take on board all the points about his domestic situation and psychological state.

One thing I have noticed is that in recent times certain players seem to encounter O'Sullivan at his best, I am thinking of Maguire, Williams and Ding. I just feel that Robertson is a challenge that will get his juices flowing.

I partly blame you for me using the word authentic! I remember you describing Williams as Authentic number one in your decade review. So, I kind of thought you used that word because he was so dominant, which obviously Robertson is not yet, through no fault of his own.

Before anyone says that I am anti-robertson I am not, I respect him hugely now as an all-round player of the highest order and an engaging character, who seems like aman with a fantastic perspective on things.

Finally, John Higgins is my tentative tip for the UK Championship, owing to his excellent recent form, which included nine centuries in just two EPTC events.

It will depend on how Robertson plays against Ronnie yes Ronnie has an very good chance of winning the Premier League also why was Alain Robidoux jealous of Ronnie playing left-handed in the 1996 World Championship First Round??

I think what Jamie is getting at is that he's not proven as the man to beat yet. I'd back Robbo over Ronnie to reach the UK final, but given a Ronnie/Robbo final line-up I'd still expect Ronnie to turn him over.

Ronnie's father being released will be an unimaginable incentive to win as many tournaments as he possibly can. As he will be 35 in December (an age when Hendry stopped winning tournaments)and the standard of play has markedly improved it should be another huge motivation. I sincerely believe he can still win tournaments well in to his 40s - if he wants to. That really would be something.

Just a couple of points—being ranked number 1 doesn't mean you're the best player, it just means you've accumulated more ranking points. That could be down to the number of events you play, the distribution of points, and also consistency: for example, someone going out in the semis of every event would get more points than someone who alternated winning titles and first round exits, but who's the better player? Over the last two seasons, the three majors have all had a different winner so it's impossible to conclusively say who the best player is.

Secondly, the price on a betting slip doesn't necessarily reflect the probability of the outcome: if everyone bets on Ronnie then his odds will shorten because the accounts have to balance at the end of the day, and the only way to do that is to get people to buy other players by giving them better prices. I bet many bookmakers wouldn't buy Ronnie at the odds they offer, because at his regular price he should be winning 3–4 tournaments a season.

the book is made up of projections of not only who the person making the tissue thinks will win, but also on betting trends, so if historically more money gets put on ROS, then he will start at lower odds than most if not all

Brannon,Ronnie's gonna have to win more substansial events other than Power Snooker,Sky Shootout and his fave Premier League to convince more balanced observers that he can be the ultimate player again.

He's 8th in the rankings dude.

Gotta win a major this season to justify any of your deluded boasting brannon.

ITV SportChat page 549 use to be a good laugh until it was shut down in December 2009.

You had Adam from Runcorn who was infatuated with the Williams sisters.Khan from Reigate who was the resident Indian cricket propagandist.

I suceeded in getting Snooker comments broadcast every so often.

Thankfully,this blog has no predictable overzealous bias.

Thing is,Jamie makes out that he takes on board all criticism yet he repeats the exact same mantra or theory just afew weeks later despite lots of evidence to the contrary.....(ie) the actual facts themselves.

I think Jamie Brannons critics are OTT. Anyone who isn't a Ronnie fan just does not understand snooker.He does things with the white that the rest can only dream about.Robertson is a great player and a worthy champion but hes not in the same planet as Ronnie where skill is invokved

Just shows how ignorant that BOY Brannon is.Ronnie is favourite for the UK, The Masters + The Worlds. He is half the price of his next challenger for those titles. Hes not won a sausage except for a wooden spoon invitational event which had stupid rules set up for the fastest player to have a bias.

But, on Jamies basis, Ronnie is 8th in the world but he is still the best and the bookies think he is the best and so theyve priced him up as sth shortest on that basis.

Yeah Jammie, they have forgot he hasnt won anything of not in over a year.

They price it up on betting markets, trends and volume of bets, expected and already placed and the market moves.

Every time you take your empty head out the sand you bump it on the silly i love Ronnie tree.

Robertson is no.1 right now because he deserves to be there- he is the best player in the world right now. However for me, i'm more interested in who's no.1 after the Crucible as they will have proved themselves over a whole season.

It is sad if Ronnie's long putting really is permanently weakened. As we have seen with Hendry and Davis the decline is seemingly irreversible. I hope that scientists discover exactly why snooker abilities decline with age. Imagine if it is a reduced production of certain brain chemicals that naturally occurs when people get in their 30s and that it can be helped by eating certain things (as not to use drugs).

I'm sure Hendry wouldn't mind gobbling down vietnamese cabbage if that is what it takes to regain his former glory.

Betty Logan's point about the O'Sullivan v Robertson match-up is what I am trying to get across, I accept that Robertson is number one and it is totally vindicated by holding two BBC events, although he benefited from John Higgins suspension too.

On a given day though Ronnie can still produce his A-game, this is why I am not sure I would agree with Dave's assertion that Robertson would be favourite in a ranking event.

However, I totally agree with Dave that over the distance of a major event that last at least a week, then O'Sullivan may struggle to deliver now. Although, he still has reached two BBC finals this year, so it would be folly to write him off yet.

The rankings in some sports are flawed, in snooker they are probably not, and in my opinion in any sport your legacy will be defined by the sports biggest tournaments ahead of your ranking status.

Is much play going on at the UK qualifying? As they seem to be taking an age to get through the early rounds, I am particularly keen to know what is going on with James Wattana, but global snooker don't seem to be updating.

Juding from the date of these qualifiers, the quality of the Asian Games snooker must have been diluted.

Someone mentioned O'Sullivan is just the World No. 8 right now - I wonder there that comes from? I has skipped the Shanghai Masters and only played in 2 PTC events. When he turned up he played great stuff this season. This whole declining debate remembers me at the season 2007/08. Ronnie hasn't won a tournament for quite some time and everyone thought his best days were over. You know what happened...

But I have to say that at the moment Robertson is the best snooker player in the world. He should be the favourite for all the tournaments he plays in. Except one - the next World Championship - why? Look at the statistics of the defending champions for the last 15 years - not to mention the Crucible curse.

For tonight I recon it's going to be a tight match - O'Sullivan as a slight favourite.

these guys will post any rubbish to say that ronnie is still the current best.

he can do things with the cueball others can only dream of

what a load of shite that comment is

i agree he is up there with the most talented ever, but 3 cushion billiards players can play shots ronnie could only dream of, but then, i bet the ron lovers will say if he played it hed be able to. yeah right....

i bet that too greg, and no wonder with all the ridiculous things the guy has said and done

yes i know hes a brilliant player, but i dont have blinkers and so do many other snooker fans not railroaded by that so they cant see him for an idiot, or a talented idiot, in their opinion.

as long as nobody is being downright rude or libelous then dave is exercising his right to let their opinion through.

i know he is a great player. i enjoy watching him play well. but i would rather the sport didnt have him and built on the rest of the sport instead of modelling it and shaping events to suit him, cos he wont last forever and the more we pander to him the harder it will be when the day comes he leaves and gives 50% of us peace.

But you do have blinkers on - you only measure him against other current snooker players.

Instead, try comparing him to all other sportsmen, especially footballers, and you'll see really he's nothing special in the "rudeness" stakes. If you put him in the Premiership nobody would notice him.

I am not sucking up to Dave in the slightest, I have respect for him as a writer, but I have challenged his opinion's sometimes in a constructive manner.

I don't agree that Ronnie wins only when he wants too, but he almost certainly would have won more tournaments, if he shown a little bit more application in certain matches, like against Ebdon in 2005 world Championship and the following year in the semi-final against Graeme Dott.

He was good enough to match Hendry's haul of seven world titles, but will probably finish on four, I think.

I don't why I bother sometimes, it doesn't even annoy that me much, don't get why people use the internet just to be infantile and immature. This is the reason for David 'bumble' Lloyd departing Twitter.